Right on. In 99% of cases, your choice of vehicle brand is fungible. Corolla's are good, cheap cars, but so are Accords, Mazda 3s, Focus', Altimas, Imprezas...
Buy something else.
I disagree wholeheartedly. One of the things Toyota has done is to establish itself as a reliable automaker of quality. People specifically think of Toyota/Honda as the vehicle makes which are most likely to last a long time and put up with abuse. Contrast this to the reputation of GM or Daewoo.
You also have the human element, where people are attracted to brand marketing and how certain models make them feel.
For those who buy CPO's or with cash, longevity and maintenance are the prime factors for budget car purchasers.
I find these and Apple "apologies" funny: "Fucking Apple and their monopolistic practices!!! ... but they are so pretty, there's nothing as pretty in the market". Well, having bad market practices is part of the product feature, so you can vote with your wallet for a product with less bells and whistles but better business practices. People using Open Source have done it for a long time.
In what way is it an apology? People will continue to buy [product] despite the producer utilizing some bad market practices if they feel like they are still getting something valuable from the exchange. I am still angry about losing the audio jack on my iPhone but not enough switch platforms.
>"Well, having bad market practices is part of the product feature, so you can vote with your wallet for a product with less bells and whistles but better business practices."
Of course, I wasn't claiming otherwise. And, I wasn't talking about bells and whistles, I was talking about build quality and reliability. It's not a stretch to say that a Toyota will probably hold up better to wear and tear than a Ford would. That's a big factor in many people's choice of vehicles. I can easily see a person grudgingly accepting an $8/mo keyfob because they think the Corolla won't suffer from transmission issues the same way a Fiesta would.
